The Lancet survey relied on surveyors from Al Mustansiriya University, the same faculty that generated huge anti-sanctions casualty figures for Richard Garfield’s studies conducted under the auspices of Saddam Hussein’s regime. Saddam’s Ministry of Health chose them well. Roberts and Burnham have reported that they chose that same faculty for local data collection at the suggestion of Richard Garfield. After all, who better to generate huge numbers of casualties than the very same folks who did it for Saddam’s effort to get sanctions lifted? And all back-slapping about “robust methodology” in the world doesn’t come to squat if the data is falsified to begin with.

The ORB data collection was conducted by Dr. Munqeth Daghir. The ORB has a couple of videos of him which make clear his opposition to the liberation of Iraq. Daghir has explained that he has no formal training in polling and only began polling after the 2003 liberation after “reading a book by Dr. Gallup.” Why the ORB or anyone else would rely on data presented by him is never explained.

Now, the above observations would come to not much if the results were consistent with research that could be trusted. They aren’t close. Here are a few indicators of falsified data.

1) car bombs everywhere

The ORB Study reports that 21.6% of its estimated deaths were from car bombs. They estimate that of 1,220,580 Iraqi casualties, car bombs have killed 264,126 of them. If the average of 7.5 deaths per car bomb that is reported in the media held for the 250,000 unreported car bomb casualties, that means there have been about 35,000 car bombs, almost all of them in Baghdad over the past 4 1/2 years. That comes to about 21 car bombs a day… or 2o times as many exploding cars every day in Baghdad than are ever mentioned in any radio, tv, or newspaper story.

And where did those 250,000 car bomb victims’ bodies go after the phantom car bomb explosions? Dr. Daghir explains with a straight face in the ORB video that they never made it to the morgues because their families must have buried them secretly to avoid militia attention. That explanation completes the circle: phantom car bombs killed an extra 250,000 people but those bodies disappeared because their relatives buried them secretly.

The Lancet study similarly offers no serious attempt to explain how the 13% of their 655,000 casualties, a less massive but still ludicrous 95,000 car bomb victims, could have been produced by the relatively few car bombs that have ever been noticed by anyone.

2) more deaths than injuries

The ORB study estimates 1,220,580 deaths but only 1,106,591 total injuries. That ratio of deaths to injuries, .907, is less than 1/2 of the general rule of thumb: expect 2 or more civilian injuries for every civilian death in a war zone. It is simply not believable that more civilians are killed than are injured by car bombs, aerial bombardment, or gunshot wounds: that would make Baghdad the only place on Earth where bullets and shrapnel behave that way.
That ratio alone is a clear indicator that the underlaying data has been falsified.

3) hundreds of thousands of extra death certificates

The Lancet study claims that the survey teams saw death certificates for 92% of the claimed casualties. Extrapolated to the population as a whole, that would mean about 600,000 death certificates issued by authorities. Unfortunately, that is about 500,000 more death certificates than any official records indicate have actually been issued. There has been no serious attempt by Roberts and Burnham to reconcile their claims with the facts. The obvious explanation is that their survey teams just made up the data and Roberts and Burnham didn’t care because the results helped them make an ideological case.

Look, no one is served well by advocacy research. Your case against IBC rests on the results of obvious nonsense. Please find a genuinely critical stance rather than an ideological one that merely strikes a critical pose.

Michael Korcok

Point 1 is a sham, it doesn’t matter what the heading is. The title of the piece is ‘Iraq conflict claims 34 civilian lives each day as ‘anarchy’ beckons’.

Point 2 – IBC have publicly criticised both studies.

Point 3 – Essentially yes, it’s ‘find a death we haven’t found’.

Point 4 is speculation.

Point 5 is silly, IBC’s comments on what their figure may represent, in terms of a true total, adds to the confusion.

Point 6 is not actually a point.

Point 7 – It’s not really a case of ‘revealed’ vs. ‘estimated’ as you would like to make out. It could more accurately read: ‘a new ORB poll revealed that an estimated 1.2.’ This being the most substantial point you’ve raised thus far. An instance in a sea of other instances.

Point 8 – IBC did ‘challenge’ Lancet 1.

Point 9 – It is not a ‘non-argument’.

Point 10 – We know from Josh’s comments, seeing as he is co-author of the Lancet 2 critique, that it goes beyond a healthy scepticism.

Mr. Sloboda, in interview with the BBC, expressed reluctance to exposing these ‘errors’ in the Lancet studies because it might harm the movement. Apparently it was only when his work had been undermined did he feel it was time to ‘expose’ the apparent deficiencies. It is a strange turnaround – and to make it on the beeb.

http://www.mediahell.org/community/07100901.htm

As some people may already know, Medialens have been publishing/promoting material critical of IBC since early 2006. This has occasionally been extreme, as in the claim that IBC were “actively aiding and abetting in war crimes” (a comment posted to the Medialens website by the Medialens editors, 17/3/06 – see http://tinyurl.com/ytb6yy, p5).

Given that the editors of Medialens (Cromwell and David Edwards) have now stated their case against IBC on Naspir, I think scrutiny of their arguments is warranted. I’d particularly like to draw attention to the following misrepresentations and errors in their article:

1. Medialens writes:
“It is striking that IBC link to a high-profile media report that so badly misrepresents its figures”.

This is a misrepresentation. The link is listed by IBC under the heading “Lists of victims or victim categories to signal the pervasive impact on every sector of Iraqi society”. The purpose of the link is to provide an example of how media have used IBC’s data on individual victims (the lower section of the article). There’s no implication that IBC approve of the article’s wording on totals.

Interestingly, the article correctly notes that IBC’s figures are “based on media reports as well as official figures from the Iraqi ministry of health and mortuaries”, whilst getting its description of the Lancet 2004 study wrong (it didn’t estimate “civilian” deaths).

2. Medialens writes:
“Whereas IBC have responded vigorously, indeed tirelessly, in responding [sic] to the 2004 and 2006 Lancet studies…”

This is, at best, a gross exaggeration. IBC released only two documents commenting on Lancet 2006 (both mildly critical) and one on Lancet 2004 (uncritical). I provide links to these documents, so people can make up their own minds:
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/beyond/lancet100000/
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/beyond/reality-checks/
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/beyond/state-of-knowledge/ (only part of this document deals with Lancet 2006)

3. Medialens writes:
“In the past, IBC’s [Iraq Body Count] response to the suggestion that violence prevents journalists from capturing many deaths has been, in effect, ‘Prove it!’”

This appears to be an outright falsehood. Medialens know that IBC have always stated that “many if not most civilian casualties will go unreported by the media. That is the sad nature of war.” This IBC statement has been quoted several times by the Medialens editors – eg here: http://www.medialens.org/alerts/06/060125_paved_with_good.php – so they can’t really excuse themselves by claiming ignorance.

4. Medialens writes:
“It was [Marc] Herold’s Afghan Victim Memorial Project that inspired John Sloboda to set up IBC. Herold’s ‘most conservative estimate’ of Afghan civilian deaths resulting from American/NATO operations is between 5,700 and 6,500. But, he cautions, this is ‘probably a vast underestimate’ [...] There is no reason to believe that the application of the same methodology in Iraq is generating very different results.”

IBC use the same approach as Herold, but they don’t use the same methodology. And there are reasons to believe the approach in Iraq is generating different results than in Afghanistan. But I doubt that Medialens have looked into the matter in enough depth to know the reasons.

5. Medialens writes:
“…what IBC is doing to promote or reduce the confusion”.

This is an unworthy insinuation, suggesting IBC are “promoting” confusion, but providing no examples of this.

6. Medialens writes:
“Well, the bureau chief of one of three Western media agencies providing a third of IBC’s data from Iraq sent this email to a colleague last year (the latter asked us to preserve the sender’s anonymity)”

Medialens cited anonymous epidemiologists in their earlier criticisms of IBC, and it was noteworthy then, as it is now with this anonymous “bureau chief” and “colleague”, that these unnamed sources weren’t able to send their comments directly to IBC (who would, of course, have treated them in confidence). In effect it amounts to 3rd-hand rumour-mongering.

7. Medialens writes:
“…a new ORB poll revealing that 1.2 million Iraqis had been murdered since the 2003 invasion”

This isn’t accurate. A new ORB poll estimates (not “reveals”) that 1.2 million had been murdered. I mention this as Medialens make a big issue of the importance of accuracy (eg the need to distinguish “deaths” from “reported deaths”).

8. Medialens writes:
“Why is it important for IBC [...] to challenge the methodology and conclusions of epidemiological studies published in the Lancet…”

IBC didn’t challenge Lancet 2004, so Medialens are wrong to write “studies” (plural). And IBC’s expressions of scepticism over Lancet 2006 are no more out of place than those from Jon Pedersen of the UNDP Iraq study, demographer Beth Osborne Daponte, Fritz Scheuren, a past president of the American Statistical Association, Professor Hans Rosling and Dr Johan Von Schreeb at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Oxford physicists Neil Johnson and Sean Gourley, Debarati Guha-Sapir, Director of the WHO Collaborating Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED), etc, etc.

9. Medialens writes:
“…as data collectors, IBC are not in a position to comment authoritatively on the impact of violence on the capacity of journalists to report accurately from Iraq. As data collectors, they have no more insight, no deeper understanding, than anyone else.”

One could equally argue that Medialens “are not in a position to comment authoritatively” on this matter. All they (or anyone else, including leading epidemiologists) can do is quote the findings of a few researchers. In other words, it’s not really an argument.

10. Medialens writes:
“Secondly, while IBC’s self-described task does indeed require only “care and literacy”, does not the task of challenging peer-reviewed science published by some of the world’s leading epidemiologists require very much more? Does it not, in fact “require statistical analysis or extrapolations,”…”

Not necessarily. It doesn’t require “statistical analysis” to observe that half a million death certificates are missing if the Lancet 2006 figure is believed. It doesn’t require epidemiological expertise to observe that there have been contradictions in the accounts of the Lancet team’s description of sampling, or that the sampling methodology as published wouldn’t give you “random” street selection. You don’t need professional qualifications to appreciate how important random sampling is, etc.

The rhetorical basis of the Medialens alert is: “how dare these data collectors tirelessly and vigorously criticise an epidemiological study”. It’s a rather feeble and misleading argument – based on one innocuous comment made by John Sloboda after being subjected to an email bombing accusing him of being an “amateur” and an “apologist” for war crimes (as documented here: http://tinyurl.com/ytb6yy, p5, 36-38, 47).

I see something unpleasant and unworthy in the way Medialens have taken a single comment from John Sloboda and used it to insinuate that IBC are committing some major sins by publishing a few documents which express scepticism about the Lancet 2006 study. Remember that many others – including non-epidemiologists and epidemiologists – have expressed similar doubts and raised the same types of questions as IBC have done. Why aren’t all these other people being subjected to a Medialens campaign?

Given that the editors of Medialens (Cromwell and David Edwards) have now stated their case against IBC on Naspir, I think scrutiny of their arguments is warranted. I’d particularly like to draw attention to the following misrepresentations and errors in their article:

[b]1. Medialens writes:[/b]
[i]“It is striking that IBC link to a high-profile media report that so badly misrepresents its figures”.[/i]

This is a misrepresentation. The link is listed by IBC under the heading [i]“Lists of victims or victim categories to signal the pervasive impact on every sector of Iraqi society”[/i]. The purpose of the link is to provide an example of how media have used IBC’s data on [i]individual[/i] victims (the lower section of the article). There’s no implication that IBC approve of the article’s wording on totals.

Interestingly, the article correctly notes that IBC’s figures are [i]“based on media reports as well as official figures from the Iraqi ministry of health and mortuaries”[/i], whilst getting its description of the Lancet 2004 study wrong (it didn’t estimate “civilian” deaths).

[b]2. Medialens writes:[/b]
[i]“Whereas IBC have responded vigorously, indeed tirelessly, in responding [sic] to the 2004 and 2006 Lancet studies…”[/i]

This is, at best, a gross exaggeration. IBC released only two documents commenting on Lancet 2006 (both mildly critical) and one on Lancet 2004 (uncritical). I provide links to these documents, so people can make up their own minds:
[url]http://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/beyond/lancet100000/[/url]
[url]http://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/beyond/reality-checks/[/url]
[url]http://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/beyond/state-of-knowledge/[/url] (only part of this document deals with Lancet 2006)

[b]3. Medialens writes:[/b]
[i]“In the past, IBC’s [Iraq Body Count] response to the suggestion that violence prevents journalists from capturing many deaths has been, in effect, ‘Prove it!’”[/i]

This appears to be an outright falsehood. Medialens know that IBC have always stated that [i]“many if not most civilian casualties will go unreported by the media. That is the sad nature of war.”[/i] This IBC statement has been quoted several times by the Medialens editors – eg here: [url]http://www.medialens.org/alerts/06/060125_paved_with_good.php[/url] – so they can’t really excuse themselves by claiming ignorance.

[b]4. Medialens writes:[/b]
[i]“It was [Marc] Herold’s Afghan Victim Memorial Project that inspired John Sloboda to set up IBC. Herold’s ‘most conservative estimate’ of Afghan civilian deaths resulting from American/NATO operations is between 5,700 and 6,500. But, he cautions, this is ‘probably a vast underestimate’ [...] There is no reason to believe that the application of the same methodology in Iraq is generating very different results.”[/i]

IBC use the same approach as Herold, but they [i]don’t[/i] use the same methodology. And there are reasons to believe the approach in Iraq is generating different results than in Afghanistan. But I doubt that Medialens have looked into the matter in enough depth to know the reasons.

[b]5. Medialens writes:[/b]
[i]“…what IBC is doing to promote or reduce the confusion”.[/i]

This is an unworthy insinuation, suggesting IBC are “promoting” confusion, but providing no examples of this.

[b]6. Medialens writes:[/b]
[i]“Well, the bureau chief of one of three Western media agencies providing a third of IBC’s data from Iraq sent this email to a colleague last year (the latter asked us to preserve the sender’s anonymity)”[/i]

Medialens cited anonymous epidemiologists in their earlier criticisms of IBC, and it was noteworthy then, as it is now with this anonymous “bureau chief” and “colleague”, that these unnamed sources weren’t able to send their comments directly to IBC (who would, of course, have treated them in confidence). In effect it amounts to 3rd-hand rumour-mongering.

[b]7. Medialens writes:[/b]
[i]“…a new ORB poll revealing that 1.2 million Iraqis had been murdered since the 2003 invasion”[/i]

This isn’t accurate. A new ORB poll [b]estimates[/b] (not “reveals”) that 1.2 million had been murdered. I mention this as Medialens make a big issue of the importance of accuracy (eg the need to distinguish “deaths” from “reported deaths”).

[b]8. Medialens writes:[/b]
[i]“Why is it important for IBC [...] to challenge the methodology and conclusions of epidemiological studies published in the Lancet…”[/i]

IBC didn’t challenge Lancet 2004, so Medialens are wrong to write “studies” (plural). And IBC’s expressions of scepticism over Lancet 2006 are no more out of place than those from Jon Pedersen of the UNDP Iraq study, demographer Beth Osborne Daponte, Fritz Scheuren, a past president of the American Statistical Association, Professor Hans Rosling and Dr Johan Von Schreeb at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Oxford physicists Neil Johnson and Sean Gourley, Debarati Guha-Sapir, Director of the WHO Collaborating Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED), etc, etc.

[b]9. Medialens writes:[/b]
[i]“…as data collectors, IBC are not in a position to comment authoritatively on the impact of violence on the capacity of journalists to report accurately from Iraq. As data collectors, they have no more insight, no deeper understanding, than anyone else.”[/i]

One could equally argue that Medialens [i]“are not in a position to comment authoritatively”[/i] on this matter. All they (or anyone else, including leading epidemiologists) can do is quote the findings of a few researchers. In other words, it’s not really an argument.

[b]10. Medialens writes:[/b]
[i]“Secondly, while IBC’s self-described task does indeed require only “care and literacy”, does not the task of challenging peer-reviewed science published by some of the world’s leading epidemiologists require very much more? Does it not, in fact “require statistical analysis or extrapolations,”…”[/i]

Not necessarily. It doesn’t require “statistical analysis” to observe that half a million death certificates are missing if the Lancet 2006 figure is believed. It doesn’t require epidemiological expertise to observe that there have been contradictions in the accounts of the Lancet team’s description of sampling, or that the sampling methodology as published wouldn’t give you “random” street selection. You don’t need professional qualifications to appreciate how important random sampling is, etc.

The rhetorical basis of the Medialens alert is: [i]“how dare these data collectors tirelessly and vigorously criticise an epidemiological study”[/i]. It’s a rather feeble and misleading argument – based on one innocuous comment made by John Sloboda after being subjected to an email bombing accusing him of being an “amateur” and an “apologist” for war crimes (as documented here: [url]http://tinyurl.com/ytb6yy[/url], p5, 36-38, 47).

I see something unpleasant and unworthy in the way Medialens have taken a single comment from John Sloboda and used it to insinuate that IBC are committing some major sins by publishing a few documents which express scepticism about the Lancet 2006 study. Remember that many others – including non-epidemiologists and epidemiologists – have expressed similar doubts and raised the same types of questions as IBC have done. Why aren’t all these other people being subjected to a Medialens campaign?